He was not. He's not even Michael Dorn or Michael Gummelt, or the guys that made Star Trek: Renegades.
Of course Michael Gummelt claimed that Paramount was producing his Trek series, not CBS. Wonder how that's going.
The Destruction of Romulus!?
- Thread starter Esirprus
- Start date
He was not. He's not even Michael Dorn or Michael Gummelt, or the guys that made Star Trek: Renegades.
Of course Michael Gummelt claimed that Paramount was producing his Trek series, not CBS. Wonder how that's going.
I hope not, because the OP couldn't even write a decent post.
He was not. He's not even Michael Dorn or Michael Gummelt, or the guys that made Star Trek: Renegades.
Of course Michael Gummelt claimed that Paramount was producing his Trek series, not CBS. Wonder how that's going.
Well, I was actually just kidding. But it is kind of strange that this guy goes on about developing a new series and meeting with CBS execs on Friday, and then news of a new series comes out on Monday.
Maybe the OP was Alex Kurtzman...?
He was not. He's not even Michael Dorn or Michael Gummelt, or the guys that made Star Trek: Renegades.
Of course Michael Gummelt claimed that Paramount was producing his Trek series, not CBS. Wonder how that's going.
Well, I was actually just kidding. But it is kind of strange that this guy goes on about developing a new series and meeting with CBS execs on Friday, and then news of a new series comes out on Monday.
Yeah, this is how conspiracy theories are formed, lol
I'm sure it was just a coincidence.
Maybe the OP was Alex Kurtzman...?
He was not. He's not even Michael Dorn or Michael Gummelt, or the guys that made Star Trek: Renegades.
Of course Michael Gummelt claimed that Paramount was producing his Trek series, not CBS. Wonder how that's going.
Well, I was actually just kidding. But it is kind of strange that this guy goes on about developing a new series and meeting with CBS execs on Friday, and then news of a new series comes out on Monday.
It wouldn't be that quick.
As it happens, I delivered a revised draft of a new TREK novel to my editor last night.
Coincidence. . . ?
Yes, probably
But, that makes me excited for other reasons
Banana?
Tell that to CBS.
New Star Trek show coming in January 2017 with a brand new crew
You were saying?
I'd like to thank everyone who condescended me in this thread. Enjoy the new Trek with the new crew. JJ Universe or Prime Universe Trek is back on tv with a new crew. It was never going to survive on just Kirk and company forever and I'm glad CBS knows that.
Terek Nor,
This is offered in a much better spirit than I have replied before, and I hope you will accept it in the good spirit in which it is intended. I am repeating a reply I posted elsewhere, but I thought it would be appropriate here as well:
It is gratifying to see that Trek is indeed coming back to tv, albeit, streaming media.
Whether it is set in the PU or the new universe, or some other timeline altogether, the important thing I think we can all agree on is that as long as the stories are good, the characters engaging, and the scope fulfilling, we are all going to be in for a helluva ride.
The show will be able to cover the things that a big screen blockbuster won't have time to cover.
Folks go to movies to have a good time, and bang for their buck for two hours.
TV shows will allow for the development that folk can invest a little more in.
It is quite possible that even if the show is set in the JJ Abrams era, the stories that are told would be those that even the opponents/initial haters would come to appreciate because the time is there to develop and invest in, both in terms of quality by the writers and acceptance by the fans/admirers.
Not having Trek on TV for quite a while has left quite a vacuum to fill. In that vacuum, we have only had the two movies, which were blockbusters. Unforutnately, that did not satisfy everyone's needs. But as the old saying goes: "You can't please everyone all the time." (or words to that effect).
So, perhaps with the new series on the air, able to tackle the stories that a two hour blockbuster cannot (because the blockbuster has to go for the biggest grab of money in a short amount of time), fans and admirers of Star Trek of every stripe will finally be able to get the best of both worlds.
Have the series for the thought provoking allegory and deeper interpersonal stories, and have the blockbuster movies as the "big events" to go to and be wowed by. I think, as long as there is that mixture, without oversaturation (i.e., having two Star Trek series on at the same time while feature films are being produced), that could be a doable intermix formula.
It seems to be working for the MCU. Why couldn't it work for Trek?
I think, in order for a new Trek series to thrive, it needs:
-Sometimes quick and witty banter... perhaps ala Aaron Sorkin style.
-Good, thought provoking tales in the likes of the older Trek writers, and even some others (whether quick or dead) like Alan Dean Foster, Phillip K. Dick, Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, Frank Herbert and any other sci-fi luminaries that I can't quite bring to mind.
-Intriguing tales in the vein of Tom Clancy and Craig Thomas
-Thrillers in the vein (but not too deep in the vein) of Stephen King
-Epic scaled story arcs, in addition to the stand alone, take a breather episodes.
-Visual effects that have shown such series to be just a bit too big for the small screen. VFX in the quality of Firefly, or the recent Battlestar Galactica series.
This is offered in a much better spirit than I have replied before, and I hope you will accept it in the good spirit in which it is intended. I am repeating a reply I posted elsewhere, but I thought it would be appropriate here as well:
It is gratifying to see that Trek is indeed coming back to tv, albeit, streaming media.
Whether it is set in the PU or the new universe, or some other timeline altogether, the important thing I think we can all agree on is that as long as the stories are good, the characters engaging, and the scope fulfilling, we are all going to be in for a helluva ride.
The show will be able to cover the things that a big screen blockbuster won't have time to cover.
Folks go to movies to have a good time, and bang for their buck for two hours.
TV shows will allow for the development that folk can invest a little more in.
It is quite possible that even if the show is set in the JJ Abrams era, the stories that are told would be those that even the opponents/initial haters would come to appreciate because the time is there to develop and invest in, both in terms of quality by the writers and acceptance by the fans/admirers.
Not having Trek on TV for quite a while has left quite a vacuum to fill. In that vacuum, we have only had the two movies, which were blockbusters. Unforutnately, that did not satisfy everyone's needs. But as the old saying goes: "You can't please everyone all the time." (or words to that effect).
So, perhaps with the new series on the air, able to tackle the stories that a two hour blockbuster cannot (because the blockbuster has to go for the biggest grab of money in a short amount of time), fans and admirers of Star Trek of every stripe will finally be able to get the best of both worlds.
Have the series for the thought provoking allegory and deeper interpersonal stories, and have the blockbuster movies as the "big events" to go to and be wowed by. I think, as long as there is that mixture, without oversaturation (i.e., having two Star Trek series on at the same time while feature films are being produced), that could be a doable intermix formula.
It seems to be working for the MCU. Why couldn't it work for Trek?
I think, in order for a new Trek series to thrive, it needs:
-Sometimes quick and witty banter... perhaps ala Aaron Sorkin style.
-Good, thought provoking tales in the likes of the older Trek writers, and even some others (whether quick or dead) like Alan Dean Foster, Phillip K. Dick, Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, Frank Herbert and any other sci-fi luminaries that I can't quite bring to mind.
-Intriguing tales in the vein of Tom Clancy and Craig Thomas
-Thrillers in the vein (but not too deep in the vein) of Stephen King
-Epic scaled story arcs, in addition to the stand alone, take a breather episodes.
-Visual effects that have shown such series to be just a bit too big for the small screen. VFX in the quality of Firefly, or the recent Battlestar Galactica series.
1. CBS hasn't said there would be a brand new crew. For all we know, it's the legendary Season 5 of Enterprise (which would almost be worth it just to see the Internet implode at the news) or another animated series. What we know is its run by one of the creators of NuTrek, and its not connected to 'Beyond' (ONLY Beyond, not 'Abrams films'.)
2. CBS doing something does not mean I will automatically think their actions are original and new. It is the network that has bombarded me with NCIS's for the last decade.
3. Anyway, I don't need to tell them because they havent claimed (yet) to be blazing any new trails. That's somewhat tied into Point 1, in that we don't know anything about it yet.
There is one thing we know about it that's genuinely 'new' and risky- the medium they're using to air it. I'm curious to see how that works out, even if it doesn't affect me personally (we get it through CBS International). I know Daredevil did fairly well on Netflix and that's probably the type of numbers CBS is hoping for, but does anyone know how it's 'ratings' did compared to actual television series? How are the folks at CBS going to be 'measuring' success?
Last edited:
It's interesting to me because a lot is being read in to CBS using new Trek to spearhead the expansion All Access, with concerns that it is UPN and VOY all over again.
1. CBS hasn't said there would be a brand new crew. For all we know, it's the legendary Season 5 of Enterprise (which would almost be worth it just to see the Internet implode at the news) or another animated series. What we know is its run by one of the creators of NuTrek, and its not connected to 'Beyond' (ONLY Beyond, not 'Abrams films'.)
2. CBS doing something does not mean I will automatically think their actions are original and new. This is the network that has bombarded me with NCIS's for the last decade.
3. Anyways, I don't need to tell them - they havent claimed yet to be blazing any new trails. That's somewhat tied into Point 1, in that we don't know anything about it yet.
There is one thing we know about it that's genuinely 'new' and risky- the medium they're using to air it. I'm curious to see how that works out, even if it doesn't affect me personally (we get it through CBS International).
Couple that with concerns of Kurtzman's leadership and it is interesting to see the speculation brew.
Got to admit - outside of Sleepy Hollow, I'm not a big fan of Kurtzmans latest TV stuff. Not so much because I think they're bad, but they fall into the same 'not really my thing' category as NCIS. But I did like Fringe and Tranformers Prime (as well as Alias and Hercules/Xena/Jack of All Trades from back in the day), so I'm comfortably in the middle.
IMDB also has him as producer on Star Trek 4. Is that just people making assumptions from the announced plans for that movie?
IMDB also has him as producer on Star Trek 4. Is that just people making assumptions from the announced plans for that movie?
Probably a lot of assumptions.
I didn't realize Kurtzman worked on Jack of all Trades. His writing credits are certainly varied enough for me to give him some benefit of the doubt.
I didn't realize Kurtzman worked on Jack of all Trades. His writing credits are certainly varied enough for me to give him some benefit of the doubt.
Never trust IMDB when it comes to upcoming productions. Especially ones that are purely hypothetical at this point.
Why? Reunification can happen between the peoples without the physical planets being required.
Similar threads
